Approved
UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
PROJECT COORDINATION GROUP
31 October 2012
(9am – 11am)
MINUTES
Chair
Bryn Morris (OBM)
Present
Jo Andrews (JA), Jo Davies (JD), Emma Griffin (EG), Zoe Manning (ZM), Richard
Murphy (RM), Richard Stock (RS), Sonia Virdee (SV), Jane Wright (JW)
By invitation
Kevin Ling (KL), Joanne Tallentire (JT)
Secretary
Anda Šadinova (AŠ)
Apologies
Marc Albano (MA), Nathan Bolton (NB), Maria Fasli (MF), Bernarde Hyde (BH),
Vanessa Potter (VP), Tracy Robinson (TR)
2. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING, 20 SEPTEMBER 2012 AND MATTERS
ARISING
Noted
Various minor amendments were made to the minutes:
 Exam paper preparation project Phase 1 would be completed by March 2013
 A section on achievements since the last survey in 2009 would be included in
the wider communications surrounding the 2012 All Staff Survey.
Agreed
The minutes from the 20 September 2012 were approved as a correct record of the
meeting
3. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW – PROJECTS AND PRIORITIES
Noted
Action planning for the next steps of the Professional Services Review (PSR) would be
discussed at the Professional Services Group away day on the 9 November 2012.
Members were invited to comment on whether the issues and priorities raised in the
PSR were correct.
The following areas were discussed by the members of the group:
5.1 Website – The new website had proved to be a successful and useful recruitment
tool, and therefore it was essential that all departmental web presence was brought in
line with the University’s corporate website.
The mention of the intranet in the PSR report was questioned. It was agreed that the
focus was on improved web services for existing staff and students regardless of the
tool used.
Agreed
The pace of change and use of resources regarding the University website was a
major issue that required a solution.
Page 1 of 5
Noted
5.2 Professionalising Projects – the University’s website served as an example for
the issue, as there was a lack of transparency regarding what the project entailed,
what were its benefits and milestones.
The interdependencies and synergies between projects needed to be highlighted in
order to show benefits to be gained, ensure buy-in and facilitate cultural change many
of the projects entailed.
Agreed
5.4 Single Points of Failure – was a very important issue raised. This was a highpriority risk management task. As an institution Essex needed to understand where
the single points of failure were and what risks they represented.
5.6 Internal communications – the communications between the 3 campuses was
not a stand-alone project for the Phase 1 but remained a priority. It was an ongoing
function of internal communications. Improving communications, celebrating success
and learning from what works across the campuses was a ‘quick win’ initiative.
Noted
Members were invited to comment on whether any projects from the Phase 2 needed
to be brought into Phase 1.
5.11 Better connecting implementation to Strategy – due to the ongoing work in
rewriting the University’s Strategy this was to be considered a Phase 1 initiative.
5.12 Quality Assurance processes – due to the ongoing review of Senate
committees this could be considered a Phase 1 initiative
5.14 Faculties Implementation – due to the ongoing work regarding the changes to
the University’s management structure the Faculties implementation could be
considered a Phase 1 initiative.
5.5 PGT Admissions – work to centralise PGT admissions was ongoing, therefore
there was no need to start new initiatives as a result of the PSR.
4. ADMISSIONS PROJECTS – JOANNE TALLENTIRE (ORAL REPORT)
Noted
It was reported that centralisation of admissions services for UG and PGT students
had largely been implemented.
Currently approximately 80% of departments had centralised UG selection decisions
which encompassed all targeted departments (initial participation target was 50% of
departments). It was planned to roll out centralised UG admissions across all
University within 1 year.
For some departments (East 15 and Health and Human Sciences) it was not possible
to implement a completely centralised admissions system as, for example, East 15
applicants needed to audition in order to be accepted on a degree programme.
The success and impact of centralised UG admissions would be evaluated during
2012-13. The time saved in departments as a result of centralised UG admissions
could be diverted to improve conversion activities.
Currently EBS PGT admissions, with the exception of MBA applicants, were
Page 2 of 5
processed centrally. It needed to be taken into account that EBS PGT students
represented a large proportion of the total PGT population at the University.
It was not clear whether other departments would agree with the centralisation of their
PGT admissions.
Project Proposals for 3 admissions projects were tabled for information. This package
of work had been previously considered by the CBSS under the broad title of
Admissions Improvement project. The new proposals unpacked the work more clearly
into 3 distinct ongoing projects
Agreed
The project proposals should be reworked to include details regarding staff resource
required for the projects.
Noted
Part of the admissions systems improvement projects were ‘live’. The admissions
system improvements included approximately 20 interrelated projects.
Agreed
There was a need to articulate, document and report on the admission projects
underway in order to give them more visibility and transparency. There was a need to
include them in the project portfolio and consider them alongside other projects for
prioritisation and scheduling purposes.
Admissions should attempt an internal prioritisation of their ongoing projects in order to
give an understanding to PCG and CBSS as to the urgency of each project. The
prioritisation should be based on the following categories:
 Impact on potential and current students;
 Impact on cost effectiveness and efficiency.
Noted
Questions were raised regarding the project manager role within the admissions
projects. If no other arrangements had been made the default project manager was
Joanne Tallentire. However, there were ongoing discussions regarding the possible
support admission projects could receive from SPCS.
5. REVIEW OF CBSS ROLE AND FUNCTIONS
Noted
Questions regarding the role, responsibility and authority of the CBSS in prioritising
work within the context of broader project developments were raised.
Agreed
CBSS was responsible for prioritising project work related to the management and
development of Corporate Systems, and submitting the prioritisation to the PCG for
final endorsement.
Noted
Questions regarding the project approval process across the University were raised,
more specifically the understanding of when projects should be considered as
‘approved’.
Agreed
Projects with significant corporate business systems/IT elements, would be submitted
to the CBSS for initial evaluation and prioritisation in relation to the other ongoing
work. The project should only be considered as ‘approved’ once it had been
considered and prioritised by the CBSS and approved and scheduled by the PCG.
Noted
The membership and terms of reference of the CBSS would be published on the
University’s Project website for information.
Page 3 of 5
6. CBSS – UPDATE ON PROJECT STATUS
Agreed
The volume of work associated with the projects listed was very high. In order for the
PCG to endorse projects with significant IT elements, CBSS needed to prioritise the
project list or give more comprehensive background information. However, in order to
prioritise there was a need to understand the current capacity, resource and skill
availability within the ISS section.
MIS Review project could provide some of the answers.
There was a need for more project and change management, as well as business
analysis capacity within the University in order to carry out the projects presented.
Noted
The resource implications were not identified for projects associated with the
Employability Strategy. In order for the resources to be allocated CBSS and PCG
needed to receive project proposals with clearly identified resource requirements.
Agreed
Dave Stanbury would be requested to submit detailed project proposals for approval
and scheduling of the work.
7. PROJECT PROPOSALS
Review of EBS Student Administrative Support
Noted
The project was approved and ongoing.
8. PROJECT REPORTS
STARS
Agreed
Project progress report was accepted, no issues were raised.
Student Services Centre
Agreed
Project progress report was accepted, no issues were raised.
9. PROJECT PORTFOLIO RAG SUMMARY
Agreed
The summary should be in a format that would serve both PCG and CBSS
All ‘live’ projects would be asked to report to the PCG for the 6 December 2012
meeting.
If the PCG had not received a project report from a project for 2 consecutive meetings
after a report had been requested, in absence of a report it would be assumed that the
project was not ‘live’ and therefore did not need resources.
After the 6 December 2012 meeting a report on project progress would be submitted
to the USG.
10. NEXT STEPS
Noted
Next PCG meeting was scheduled for 6 December 2012
Page 4 of 5
11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Noted
There was no other business
Anda Šadinova
Strategic Planning and Change Section
7 November 2012
Page 5 of 5